G.R. No.

L-41423 February 23, 1989

LUIS JOSEPH, petitioner

vs.
HON. CRISPIN V. BAUTISTA, PATROCINIO PEREZ, ANTONIO SIOSON, JACINTO
PAGARIGAN, ALBERTO CARDENO and LAZARO VILLANUEVA, respondents.

FACTS:

Petitioner filed a complaint for damages against respondent Patrocinio Perez, as owner of
the cargo truck, based on a breach of contract of carriage and against respondents Antonio Sioson
and Lazaro Villanueva, as owner and driver, respectively, of the pick-up truck, based on quasi-delict.
Respondent judge issued the questioned order dismissing the case. Petitioner appealed the decision
contending that the release of claim executed by petitioner in favor of respondents Sioson,
Villanueva and Pagarigan inured to the benefit of respondent Perez.

ISSUE:

Whether the trial court is correct in holding that there is only one cause of action involved in
the case at bar.

RULING:

The trial court was correct in holding that there was only one cause of action involved
although the bases of recovery invoked by petitioner against the defendants therein were not
necessarily Identical since the respondents were not identically circumstanced. However, a recovery
by the petitioner under one remedy necessarily bars recovery under the other. This, in essence, is
the rationale for the proscription in our law against double recovery for the same act or omission
which, obviously, stems from the fundamental rule against unjust enrichment.